Ktprktpr V Drunk. Democracy.

Each debator will have one opening statement each.This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each.There will be one closing statement each and no rebutal.

The Debate topic is:There is no such thing as democracy in the world today.

Ktprktpr will argue for this proposition and he will open the Debate.
Drunk will respond and argue against this proposition.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours.However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this.

Other rules can be found on a Topic on this forum.

I wish you both goodluck

Democracy literally means rule by the people. There are two types of democracies, direct and indirect. Plainly there are no direct democracies today, but indirect democracies are defined as (from Webster's Third New International Dictionary):

A form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority which the people choose their officials and representatives at periodically held free elections.


Let's extract a number of points from this definition to better see what an indirect democracy really is:

1) Whatever supreme power is, it is certainly not defined by the government. It is given unequivocally and absolutely. Since this power is given universally to the People it is not Anarchy.


2) Representatives are all chosen by the People. If representatives were chosen indirectly the definition would say so; something so important would be explicit. This leads to a very interesting point:


3) The can only be one "level" of representation, that is:

People -> Delegates

not

People -> Delegates -> More Delegates

because power is indirectly exercised by those (directly) chosen by the people.


4) The system of representation and delegates invest supreme power in the People and nowhere else. Likewise, when the People have supreme power and delegates are chosen in free elections, the system of presentation does not matter.

All existing forms of human government violate at least one of these four points listed above. And there is no such thing as democracy in the world today.

Here goes first off, is my good for or against it? seems like he is undecided anyway.

Democracy is there such a thing?

Nowadays it seems that democracy is fading fast, take the US for example to me there is no democracy cos the government are clamping down on people who enter their country same as applies for the U.K, these ppoor people who are refused entry to these countries are probably saying to themselves".....And this is a democracy?" Governments control countries and add laws that restrict their citizens from doing as they please.

I am not talking about terrorists and the like, i am talking about everyday folk like you and i.

OK.Sorry this is my fault.I used a negative in the topic title.I was confused myself for a while.

Kptr is arguing that there is no democracy.
Drunk is arguing that there is democracy.

Drunk have another go.

Let me get this str8 i am arguing that there is democracy?

O.K but make up your mind Jon


Cant we leave as it is? cos how can i argue for thiong that i am against?!

TAKE 2!

O.K democracy is a state of being that some of us dont have, here in Honf Kong for example we can say what we like about the government and not spend X years in a prison cell for voicing our opinions.

The world is changing democratically,Afganistan(cant spell it)Iraq O.K the were freed from there evil governments by United States and United Kingdom
the people of those countries wanted freedom nut were to scared to oppose their governments, so powerful countries intervened to give the people what they wanted.

Democracy is basically freedom to do whatever you want
to do even cussing a government but unfortunately some governments opt not to allow this leisure to its people.

Okay. I'm going to tell it like it is, because this debate clearly isn't going to be won in an ivory intellectual tower. I'm officially, now, taking it to the concrete ....

This debate all comes down to the definition of democracy (many debates do come down to definitions). This debate is about one thing, not two, so we we have to agree on a common definition of democracy.

Defining democracy is a dangerous thing to do because dirty things can sneak in, like pre-1971 Switzerland, which didn't allow women to vote. On the other hand, as we restrict the term "democracy", we find that fewer and fewer countries remain. So by what metric are we to define democracy?

Well, honestly, we need a definition that stays true to its ideal while not defining to much. So let's look at where the word democracy came from and what it means:

Democracy = Demos Kratein

It comes from the Greek words "demos", which means the People, and "kratein", which means to Rule. Put these two words together and you get something like: "Rule of the People". A little elaboration gives you the oft-quoted "for the people, by the people." This is direct democracy.

How do we get a modern definition? Well, we know we want something that involves people, and them voting for what they want (<-- this is a system of representation, btw). The other ideals, like freedom of speech, are protected in things like the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, and not by democracy.

Don't get me wrong, a Bill of Rights is a great thing and most democracies wouldn't be worth much without it, but they don't make up the essence of "democracy". Ancient Athens was said to be a democracy but only a white minority could vote and I'm pretty sure no one had free speech. Clearly, human rights + democracy democracy; it equals something else (most likely, human rights + democracy )

Okay so I've just told you what modern democracy was NOT (or didn't include). Let's look a little bit harder and use some commonsense along the way:

People are really important. Democracy is all about people, not aristocrats or kings and queens.

Nations have gotten so big that direct democracy can't be practiced. So we need representatives in order to directly exercise the will of the People. Remember that the People are the most important part of this process (after all they implemented this thing to represent them).

So the only the People should elect representatives. Not the King, not an official appointing his energy cronies for some "independent" review board. It's the people that elect representatives for all things. Of course these elections would be free. Otherwise only the rich could vote and we know where that would lead us ...


If you distill the above you get the following definition:

- The People should elect their representatives

- Elections need to be free

- The Elect represent the will and (supreme) power of the People

- Democracies serve the People. In a literary sense, the People stand upon democracy. Democracy does not stand on the People, so to speak.


Hold these points up to a mirror. What do you see shining back at you? The modern definition of democracy ("for the people, by the people"), looking exactly like the one found in Webster's Third International Dictionary. (see my opening entry for a clarification)

Now you can argue with my points, but I think you'll find that the People are the important thing and that the People, only, should elect their representatives.

And even from these two points I can expose the false democracies to the world.

For the U.S. :

Democracy implies the consent of the governed. Sure people consent to be rich, but who consents to being poor? The majority aren't rich, no doubt.

The Constitution says nothing about democracy. That's because it had nothing to do with it. It says that every state has to have a republican government. You can't vote otherwise. Representatives can appoint delegates which are not directly elected by the people. That's a major illegal violation of democracy.

For most of Europe:

Europe kowtows to the EU. I haven't researched exactly how the EU interfaces with each nations' government, but I'm pretty sure the result isn't to democratic. I suspect things like veto powers and the like. Each individual country has failings. Look at Switzerland, for example. Every two years the ruling political alternates! The People have no say on what party they want. It's like a magic autocratic wanna-be democratic government!

I could go on but this is getting kinda long and I've made my point. Put any nation of this world under my nose and I can tell you what I smell: It ain't Demos Kratein...

To me it seems like ktpr is arguing for both!

Democracy should be a world wide issue where governments are concerned the one thing i can understand though is that why do terrorist groups not believe in freedom take Al Queda for instance obl is always saying "Death to America" at the end of speeches, America for most, is was Democracy is all about other nations try to follow the U.S their style.

I am sure OBL and his buddys have the freedom to do what they please, cos they are always blowing things up and killing people for no reason, so they are actually
a democratic faction in their own right.

Arguing for both what? It's kind of hard to make out your argument.

Democracy is not an issue, it's a noun indicating a type of government. Human rights, capitalism and fair rights are a world wide issue. The world has abused the word democracy so much that they've forgotten what it means. If you look at the Greek roots and the ideal it supports, it's clear that democracy is a pretty restrictive term. We have other big words for the governments out there, like Constitutional Republic.

And democracy is not a "state of being". In meditation, you don't not "become" democracy, or at least I don't. Do you? Also, anarchy is the freedom to do whatever you want, not democracy.

Here's what the English noun "democracy" means:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576

A form of government in which supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority which the people choose their officials and representatives at periodically held free elections.

And no notion reaches this ideal ... there are no democracies in the world today.

"Anarchy is the freedom to do what you whatever you"

Anarchy is a totally different thing how can you say anarchy is freedom? when it represents chaos,O.K it is a type of democracy but its not the issue here.

It does seem you arguing both for and against democracy.

"It does seem you arguing both for and against democracy."

Okay. Then explicitly show how I am arguing both for and against democracy in this world today.

Tell me how my evaluation of the Greek roots for "democracy" grew up to mean the entire Western world. Further demonstrate what my faulty definition really means (it's not enough to discount my argument in a debate). Finally, illustrate, in all your grandeur, how a single democratic county exists in this world.

I beg you to remember that democracy is a noun, not a state of being.

I beg you to do some research.

I beg you to grapple with at least one point I've let loose.


Okay, let me continue where I picked off...

In expanding the definition of democracy to denote the American Way, human rights, free speech and so forth, that definition becomes a valueless approximation of the adjective "Good". It takes effort on the torture rack to stretch a noun into an adjective, believe me.

Now hold your cranium and bear with me ... let me insert some basic information theory:

In information theory, there's a concept of meaning. The more a word resolves ambiguities the more meaning it has. Such a word is more valuable in communication because, well, it means more. So when you make "democracy" a synonym for "Good", it becomes far less meaningful. It's like saying, Ktprktpr claims to be a good human being vs. Ktprktpr claims to be a Trappist monk. The later definition means more and is more valuable in a conversation (esp. if I'm not talking). In debates or detailed discussion, the weight of meaning takes on even more value. Okay, so your definition, as I'm reading it, is almost transparent and meaningless.

Well, where else can I go? Any definition of democracy should respect it's roots and I've given a such a definition. I've extracted points from that definition. I've illustrated why it's far better to have a meaningful definition than not. From the definition I've showed the U.S. and Europe aren't democracies. I guess I can go on to prove every other nation on the planet isn't a democracy but that would take a long time. I'll just say this:

If you look at my points you'll find that

a) pretty much all nations let representatives appoint other "representatives" (violates point 2 and 3),

b) most nations allow the government to have supreme power, by locking people up for life, etc. inside of deporting them (violates point 1),

c) and from b) more than one level of representation exists,

d) the government take a helping of that supreme power that citizens should have (capital punishment, enforced regulations not explictly agreed to by the People)

..... alllllllriiiiiighty then. You got one more post and then its to the conclusion we'll go.

Whatever, but u still havnt stated an argument against democracy, its still seems you are on the edge of for and against democracy.

I actually have nothing to add untill you state that you are against it cos you ahve avoided this already.

Democracy is what a counrtry makes it, most citizens of a nation wish for democracy but cant do anything about cos the government disalows it so a civil uprising maybe on the cards for 1 or 2 nations seeing that it can be done in Afganistan and Iraq, the North Korean people may decide t over throw their govt b4 U.S intervension.

Closing statements now.Remember there are no rebutals in this round.Thankyou

Well for me democracy can be achieved if nations want it, U.S.A and Great Britain are a prime example, people have to look at them economically.The U.S 8has nearlyy recovered from it 911 attacks and Graet Britain was never penetrated so the overall aspect for democracy is rather easy for countries who need i.

They(other nations)shouldn't rely on GB and USA for physical help but for mental help GB and USA have set an example for al struggling nations who want democracy.





THE END.

I admit that I focused on the definition of democracy a bit, but it's clear that a definition determines what or what is, or is not, out there. I have been arguing for a restrictive definition that included no government on Earth.

I first looked at the modern definition of democracy and extracted a number of points. Drunk didn't seem to take it immediately so I later explained how I came about that definition. I worked from the Greek roots, explained how human rights, etc., are peripheral matters, and extracted the same points seen in my opening. Then I demonstrated how both the U.S. and Europe were not democracies, by examining social conditions and oddities of their government.

Later I noted that definitions with more meaning are, *gasp*, more meaningful. This included my definition and excluded Drunks'. Since it was my last post, I again illustrated, broadly, how there were no democratic governments on Earth by pointing out what points all governments violate. At no point did Drunk present a clear and concise definition of democracy.

Here's a little diagram:

Restrictive Definition of Democracy -->
No democracies! -->
( Objection from Drunk (?) )
Revival of definition from ancient roots and points -->
No democracies, again! -->
Slight critique of opposition -->
Why vague definitions don't mean much -->
General use of points to prove no democracies ->
No democracies, again!


Well I had fun and I hope the best debator wins.

Thankyou both Ktkrktpr and drunk.Certainly one of the most entertaining confrontations.


I will now refer this to the judges.Goodluck to you both